Redux: Our Jury Rights are Being Trampled Upon

I'm re-posting this piece because it's extremely important to the concept of Freedom... especially now, given the plethora of unconstitutional "Laws" currently in force in this great Land.  [The previous title was "The Last Bastion".]

The last sane bastion against an errant government (not counting armed revolt, which nowadays is insane) is jury nullification. Very early in our country's history, the role of jury nullification as a defense against oppression by the State was unquestioned. It remained so until the 1850s, a time during which many juries began not convicting in prosecutions under the Fugitive Slave Act. Judges, seeing a mighty demonstration of the power of juries, began to change the rules of the Court. The primary and most devastating change was that juries would no longer be permitted (by judges) to judge the law; they would be confined to judging only the facts of the case.

The new rules were (and still are) a blatant infringement on the rights of juries. That's not just my view...

"The jury has a right to judge both the law and the facts in controversy."
~ John Jay, First Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1789

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
~ Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1796
"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
~ Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1941

Juries routinely are told by judges that jury members cannot judge the law, only the facts of the case. Not true. Numerous case decisions have upheld the right of any juror to nullify a "bad" law and vote to acquit. Example: "The jury has an unreviewable and unreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge." U.S. v.Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972). Example: "...it is presumed that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision. You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine law as well as the fact in controversy." [Emphasis added.] State of Georgia v. Brailsford, et.al. 3 U.S. 1 Dall. (1794).

So, why do jurors not know these things? The reason is simple: in

Sparf v. United States (1895), the Court decided that courts need not inform jurors of their de facto right of jury nullification even though the jurors' inherent right to judge the law remains unchallenged. All judges are aware of this. Rather than inform juries of all their rights, judges tend to intimidate jurors by telling them that they cannot judge the law.

All of this is crucial to individual sovereignty and freedom because governments practice Legislative Absolutism (a term coined by Justice Harlan in 1901), passing laws without any regard for constitutions (Federal and State). Other than bringing suit in a court of law, the aggrieved citizen has no legal and peaceful recourse except to rely on jury nullification. Bringing suit usually is very expensive and time-consuming. Unfortunately, relying on jury nullification depends upon having a fully informed citizenry, and jurors with courage and integrity...therefore, spread the word! We need fully informed juries.

Not just my opinion.  Be Well

The Consummate Liar Strikes Again

Obama's lies have become so blatant that even a person who is totally apathetic and ignorant of politics must be able to detect them... at least, I would think so.  Following are just a few of his latest attempts at deception.  Feel free to laugh, cry, or sigh... or cuss.

1.  Regarding the Obama-Osama story, the Administration claims there are too many assertions by Hersh to respond to any of them.  What a cop-out.  So much for accountability.  Obama, through spokesmen, claims the whole Hersh story is false; we are supposed to simply accept their word.  Personally, given the President's record, I would believe Sy Hersh over Barack Obama any day of the century.

2.  Regarding his support for the TPP---
Obama claims he fought hard for banking regulations after the 2008 Crisis, so "Why would I sign something that rolls back those protections?".  His implication is that parts of the TPP do not roll back protections against crooked mega bankers.  That's a bald-faced lie.  In addition, the regulations he supported back when were nothing but window-dressing.  Finally, he signed the fairly recent omnibus spending bill that included an Amendment written by Citi-Group lobbyists which did roll back the paltry protections of Dodd-Frank.  Obama must believe that we have the shortest memories in the history of Humanity... or, he simply doesn't give a damn about what we think... or???

3.  Obama continues to claim that NSA dragnet, bulk collection of our records (phone, email, other internet use, credit cards) is legal.  Just the other day, a Fed Appeals Court vigorously disagreed and called the bulk collection "unprecedented and unwarranted".  The Court went on to say that the Executive Branch doesn't even pretend that such collection is related to any "specific, defined inquiry".  All that makes the whole business a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment.  Given his Constitutional Law education, Obama must know that.

4.  Obama lies by omission.  Not long ago, he stated that "No one is listening to your phone calls.".  He left out this:  one of the Snowden documents revealed that calls are being recorded automatically, and that the NSA has the technology to enable a key-word search and then generate a transcript of the conversation.  All of this is done by high-speed computers because of the billions of calls involved.  So, the end result is the same as if someone were listening to your calls.  Even if there were no key-word searches or transcripts, simply recording the numbers of whom we call (without a specific reason or specific warrant to do so) is plainly unconstitutional.  Read the Fourth Amendment:  the word "effects" surely includes our records.  Obama must know that.
....................................................................
Yes, other Presidents have lied and violated the Constitution.  That's no legitimate excuse for the current President to do the same.  Democrats and Republicans (at the highest levels) both appear to believe that the U.S. Constitution is a Menu... just pick out what you like and discard the rest.  These same Democrats and Republicans appear to believe in Legislative Absolutism, a term coined by a Supreme Court Justice, Harlan, in 1901.  The term means passing laws that violate the Supreme Law of the Land... such as the misnamed PATRIOT Act.  This will all continue until We the People peacefully put a stop to it.

Not just my opinion.  Happy Trails

Syria and Our Constitution

Here we go again. Read the Constitution---there are only two uses of the military permitted: 1. to repel invasions; 2. to quell insurrections. To get around that, Presidents have been relying on the War Powers Act to use our military pretty much whenever they see fit. The trouble is...laws do NOT supercede the Constitution. Using our military as the world's police force, no matter how justified, is unconstitutional. There is no legitimate authority for that use.  Yes, what's happening in Syria is an obscenity, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with constitutional use of the military.

An Amendment is required to change the situation, but politicians just pass laws instead. [It's easier to do that than to get 3/4ths of the States to ratify a new Amendment.] That's called "Legislative Absolutism", a term coined by Justice Harlan in 1901; it means passing laws with no regard for the limitations placed upon the Feds by the Constitution.

Let's not forget that Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Pinochet, & others all had "laws" in place to justify their actions, too. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Change it if you must, but do not simply ignore it. Changing it must be done by amendment or a constitutional convention; no other ways are permitted in our system of government. None.

As always...just my opinion...after ~ 50 years of serious study of the U.S. Constitution, probably the most plainly written document ever put forth by a government.

The Last Bastion

In my opinion, the last bastion against an errant government (not counting armed revolt) is jury nullification. Very early in our country's history, the role of jury nullification as a defense against oppression by the State was unquestioned. It remained so until the 1850s, a time during which many juries began not convicting in prosecutions under the Fugitive Slave Act. Judges, seeing a mighty demonstration of the power of juries, began to change the rules of the Court. The primary and most devastating change was that juries would no longer be permitted (by judges) to judge the law; they would be confined to judging only the facts of the case.

The new rules were (and still are) a blatant infringement on the rights of juries. That's not just my view...

"The jury has a right to judge both the law and the facts in controversy."
~ John Jay, First Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1789

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts."
~ Samuel Chase, U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1796

"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the cause which is to be decided."
~ Harlan F. Stone, 12th Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, 1941

Juries routinely are told by judges that jury members cannot judge the law, only the facts of the case. Not true. Numerous case decisions have upheld the right of any juror to nullify a "bad" law and vote to acquit. Example: "The jury has an unreviewable and unreversible power...to acquit in disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial judge." U.S. v. Dougherty, 473 F 2nd 1113, 1139 (1972). Example: "...it is presumed that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision. You have a right to take upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine law as well as the fact in controversy." [Emphasis added.] State of Georgia v. Brailsford, et.al. 3 U.S. 1 Dall. (1794).

So, why do jurors not know these things? The reason is simple: in Sparf v. United States (1895), the Court decided that courts need not inform jurors of their de facto right of jury nullification even though the jurors' inherent right to judge the law remains unchallenged. All judges are aware of this. Rather than inform juries of all their rights, judges tend to intimidate jurors by telling them that they cannot judge the law.

All of this is crucial to individual sovereignty and freedom because governments practice Legislative Absolutism (a term coined by Justice Harlan in 1901), passing laws without any regard for constitutions (Federal and State). Other than bringing suit in a court of law, the aggrieved citizen has no legal and peaceful recourse except to rely on jury nullification. Bringing suit usually is very expensive and time-consuming. Unfortunately, relying on jury nullification depends upon having a fully informed citizenry, and jurors with courage and integrity...therefore, spread the word! We need fully informed juries.

Yes We Can

Can we further destroy the Constitution by claiming that Congress has the authority to pass a health care bill under the umbrella of Interstate Commerce? Yes we can. With the passage of Obamacare, the members of the central government think that they now can regulate not just health insurance, but health care as well. I don't know about you, but I get my health care locally from a doctor who does no business out-of-State. Furthermore, it is the individual States that license doctors, nurses, pharmacists, etc., not the Federal Government.

According to Judge Andrew Napolitano, the original intent of the Interstate Commerce clause was to insure that the individual States would allow commerce to take place between and among them. That, for example, Texas could not say to New Mexico, "Your businesses are not allowed to conduct commerce in this State."

Then, too, there is the issue (contained in the new health care law) of the central government being able to force individuals to buy a service from a private entity. The Constitution gives no such authority to the Fed Government. On that provision alone, the recently passed health care bill is completely unconstitutional.

Can we further destroy the Constitution by claiming that Congress and the Executive have the authority to regulate education under the General Welfare provision? Yes we can. Here's what James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, had to say (paraphrased) about General Welfare: to claim it covers most anything is to completely contradict the concept (to which we adhere) of a government of enumerated powers. The words "General Welfare" merely are an introduction to the powers listed in Article I, Section 8. Congress has only those seventeen powers.

[For those few who may not know, "Yes we can" was a familiar cry during the Obama campaign for the Presidency.]

Obama and many members of Congress are continuing and expanding the destruction of the U.S. Constitution by practicing Legislative Absolutism (a term coined by Justice Harlan in the very early 1900s), which is and has been done for decades by both Republicans and Democrats. Rather than amend the Constitution, which requires two-thirds of both Houses of Congress AND three-fourths of the States, they instead pass laws to get what they want...and apparently they don't care whether or not the law is constitutional. They are all violating their constitutional oath of office. For some odd reason, we keep electing them to office.

What Happened to Our Republic?

If you truly care about the title question, then please do the following when you have time. Utilizing the "Search This Blog" function on the sidebar to the left, do a Search for each of the following:
legislative absolutism;
constitutional republic;
corporatocracy;
the new paradigm;
what happened to our country.

A number of past articles will turn up. Over the next few weeks or so, please review them; hopefully, you'll come to the conclusion that favoring one of the major political parties over the other is not the solution to the problem. The problem is way beyond that.

If one does a little digging, what happened to our Republic is fairly obvious. It's the solution to the problem that is the stickler. What is the solution? What can be done to restore the Republic? How can we have a free society? What price Freedom? I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I do know this for certain: those of us who believe in a Constitutional Republic and a free society are almost completely disorganized...and distracted. We appear to be divided up into a plethora of groups, each pursuing some small portion of a solution.

I've said this before: we need to get organized and focused. It seems to me that the first thing we require is a website that will draw all the various factions of the Liberty Movement to one place. At that place, I think it would be good to propose solutions (action items), discuss them at length, and then vote on each one. Once a course of action is identified (be it one item or several), we can then implement the action(s) in a timely and coordinated manner. If we don't do something along these lines, then we can be relatively certain of a steady march toward complete destruction of our Republic.

To those of you who believe that you are currently involved in what your particular group thinks is the proper solution to the problem, I would ask--- how can you possibly believe that? I've been a serious observer of American politics and the condition of our Republic for over half a century. The progression toward Statism, or Collectivism, or Totalitarianism, or whatever you wish to call it has been unrelenting during that time...and continues to this very day. It doesn't matter which political party is in control, the results are pretty much the same---less individual freedom, and more destruction of our Republic. It doesn't even matter much that, once in a blue moon, some faction of the Liberty Movement has a minor victory. Overall, the Republic continues to be destroyed.

What excuses will we give to our grandchildren? "I wasn't sure what to do." Or, "I tried, believe me. I worked hard for _________." Or, "It happened so gradually that we woke up too late." Or, "The majority didn't want a Republic anymore." Or, "Too many people were apathetic, and didn't even know the value of a Republic." Or, "Some of us tried to preserve Freedom, but it seemed so hopeless, what with the attitudes of most people." Or, blah-blah-blah.

None of that is good enough. Yes, we've tried. Yes, we've worked hard for this or that. But let's be brutally honest---we're losing the battle. A new approach is needed...something way beyond party politics, and something comprehensive. Don't give up.

Immigration, Reproduction, & the Constitution

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9atIjykihkc

If the stats in the above video are correct, then that's one more reason to pressure Congress to call an Article V Constitutional Convention. [See http://foavc.org/ ]

Currently only the President has to be a natural-born citizen in order to hold elective office. Perhaps a Constitutional Amendment should be proposed that requires ALL national politicians to be natural-born, as well as their ancestors (going back, say, 100 years or so). "Unfair", some would say. Really? I guess that means the current requirement for the office of President is unfair as well, eh?

Without that Amendment, it would appear that we easily could have a national government run by Muslims in only several decades or so. Is that bad? Well, it seems to me that it might be...especially given the fact that our government has been converted illegally into a Democracy, as opposed to what it is supposed to be---a Constitutional Republic.

That conversion has been accomplished by means of Legislative Absolutism, a term coined by Supreme Court Justice Harlan in the early 1900s. In a Democracy, where the majority is almighty, almost any law can be put into effect...regardless of the negative impact on individual Rights. In a Constitutional Republic, individual Rights are paramount and the national government is one of enumerated powers---the government can do only what is listed in the Constitution. In other words, Congress cannot pass any law it wishes simply because a majority desires it.

Over the past several decades in my life, I've come across many people who believe sincerely that our government legally can pass any law it wishes, dealing with any subject, as long as a majority favors said law. That simply is not true. It can be (and has been) done illegally, but not legally. Our Constitution strictly limits the areas in which the government can delve; but those limitations have been ignored by Congress (both Democrats and Republicans) for many, many years. For example, nowhere in the Constitution is the central government given the authority to have anything whatsoever to do with education. That matter was reserved (by the Tenth Amendment) to the States or to the People. No Constitutional Amendment has been ratified that gives the Fed Government such authority or power.

Democratic Socialism?

A seemingly growing minority in this great land believe that we should convert our form of government to that of Democratic Socialism, or a Social Democracy. They further believe that many unfulfilled "needs" (e.g., a need for national health care coverage) exist amongst the populace, and that a Constitutional Republic is inadequate to meet them. These people are found amongst both Democrats and Republicans. They have been changing our form of government bit by bit by means of Legislative Absolutism for decades, passing laws in areas where the Fed Govt has no Constitutional authority to act. All for the "good of our society".

The only question is: where do we draw the line? Even if we commoners all agree on where that is, it is highly doubtful that the Powers-That-Be will want to stop there. Why anyone thinks that "democratic socialism" will stop at the point of democratic socialism is beyond me.

"Power corrupts, and..." ~ Lord Acton

"There are two enemies of the People: criminals and the government. Let us bind the second with the chains of the Constitution, so that it does not become the legalized version of the first." ~ Thomas Jefferson

That's exactly what the Founders did: they bound government with the chains of the Constitution. Just because that happened in the late 1780s (and this is 2007) does not mean that the rules no longer apply.

Many feel that last quote is an anachronism at best, a quaint dictum that is no longer applicable in modern-day America. Many others, however, feel that it is a timeless Truth---more applicable now than ever before; and the same folks also believe that the existence of a "need" does not justify any means of fulfilling that need, particularly force.

I really get amused with people who believe that the Founders' concepts are "out-of-date", "old-fashioned", and "from a bygone era". Funny thing...those people never include the concepts of due process, free speech, the right to privacy, civilian control of the military, etc.; they only include items such as the limitations of the Constitution on the central government, or the right to bear arms, or anything else they personally think gets in the way of some Statist agenda.

In our system of government, we have a distinct, legal way to change the rules governing government---Constitutional Amendment or Constitutional Convention. Those who sincerely believe in democratic socialism---and that amounts to (at most) about 20-25% of the populace, notwithstanding all the hoopla to the contrary---need to lobby for a Constitutional Convention, or a series of Amendments... that is, if they want to do things according to the Supreme Law of the Land. [I think all would agree that our form of government is a Constitutional Republic, not a Socialist Democracy. Change it if you can, but do that legally.]

This is all just common sense, and so obvious...is it not?